Trump is apparently expanding the US military presence in the Middle East, a possible buildup to an attack on Iran. The why of this is important, since it involves nuclear capability, Israel, and quite possibly some corrupt scheme to line Trump’s pockets by either getting a payoff for stopping the attack or a payoff for executing it. All-in-all an interesting development for a President who just scammed $10B from American taxpayers for his “Board of Peace,” which itself raises interesting Constitutional questions about that whole Advise and Consent clause that requires Senate approval for treaties.
A post – or podcast episode – for another day. For now, this got me to thinking about US military leaders and how I would expect them to react if given orders to conduct offensive operations in support of an expansionist fascist regime.
We already know they will conduct offensive operations against both nation states and non-state actors given a plausible national security and moral argument, however specious (see Viet Nam and Communist expansion).
What would it take to get them on board with an openly expansionist foreign policy? To capture Greenland by force….then Cuba…Panama (the stole our canal, after all)? He’s openly spoken about invading all these countries, plus Mexico, on a “go after the cartels” pretext.
The US Supreme Court just struck down the sweeping tariffs Trump imposed on a variety on nations under the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts joined Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the 6-3 ruling.
The Court ruled that Congress, not the President, has the power to impose broad tariffs on any imports from specific nations, and the Economic Powers Act does not confer this power on the President by a simple declaration. This does not affect industry-specific tariffs imposed under the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Looks like SCOTUS isn’t the rubber stamp some of us thought they were, though given the effect on the stock market they may be protecting their portfolios in this case. Looking forward to reading the opinions, especially the dissent joined by Alito (who may be about to retire), Kavanaugh, and Thomas.
Saw a post from a job candidate relating that during an interview the HR rep asked him to open ChatGPT and insert this prompt so they could then discuss the results as part of the interview: “Based on my past conversations, can you analyze my behavioral tendencies?”
So I inserted this prompt myself to see what I would get, and this is the “key traits” part of the response. Can’t say I disagree with this assessment.
Note that this is based on how I use OpenAI (ChatGPT) specifically. It came with this disclaimer:
“I can give you a pattern-based behavioral analysis based only on how you tend to use this chat — not a psychological diagnosis, just observable tendencies in work style, communication, and creative habits. Think of it as a usage-behavior profile, not a personality judgment.”
Potential Strength Areas: • Branding and media production • Policy or political communications • Editorial leadership • Curriculum or lecture development • Project management involving creative deliverables
This got quite a few impressions, and about two dozen comments. Some of the comments got me thinking, so I thought I would repost here and elaborate a bit. Since LinkedIn limits post length I only posted the “Key Traits” portion of the response. I’ll add the full analysis at the end of this post, as well as a second version I generated this morning, for comparison.
Upon reflection, and after reading the comments, a few thoughts. First, why would an interviewer do this? With AI becoming more ubiquitous in professional settings, they may have simply wanted to find out if the candidate uses it. Whatever result it gave might provide insight on how the candidate uses AI and for what, but a non-user would not be able to complete the exercise.
Interviewers might also seek to find out if the candidate might have something to hide – for example, someone who uses Grok to create images of celebrities in bikinis – or birthday suits – might push back if asked to do this with that platform. Interviewers would consider this, I think. So I imagine this would make many candidates uncomfortable, if only because it’s new and they had never encountered the question before. Many people study for an interview like it’s a physics exam, and a surprise question might throw them off. Not to imply that recruiters might use this as sort of a psychological trick…
I’m also wondering if whatever “behavioral analysis” this prompt might generate has any real use. Since an LLM really just amounts to predictive software that uses training data (e.g., WikiPedia, Reddit, internet blog posts) to guess the next word in a sentence (or code?) using probabilities, it will spit out a different result every time. Of course, it will also change as an individual uses it more, and depend heavily on what that use is. For example, take a look at the summary of results from my first shot at this:
Potential Strength Areas: • Branding and media production • Policy or political communications • Editorial leadership • Curriculum or lecture development • Project management involving creative deliverables
A few moments ago I tried the prompt again and got this summary:
Overall Composite Pattern
Your behavioral tendencies suggest someone who is:
Deliberate
Detail oriented
Strategic
Comfortable with revision cycles
Balanced between analytical reasoning and creative production
Focused on outcome quality over speed
Low-drama, high-persistence in problem solving
If expressed in a working style rather than a personality label, it would resemble a “producer-editor” mindset – someone who both generates content and continuously refines it to meet a precise internal standard.
Note the differences. Most of the traits track, but the formatting is very different. So is the output: “Working style” rather than “Archetype,” for example. “Producer-editor” rather than “Producer-analyst hybrid.”
I think it’s also important to note that all of this output is very flattering. The first iteration includes “Potential Strength Areas” but neither included anything about weaknesses, unless you count “focused on outcome quality over speed.”
In any event, we already know that employers and recruiters use AI to triage applicants, notably using some kind of software to hunt through resumes for keywords that match the job description. The federal government has done this for a long time, and the method has now spread to private employers. This causes candidates to use AI to revise resumes so they match these job descriptions, which I can tell you from personal experience is problematic and perhaps less efficient than one hopes. When I tried this it added an “Increased sales by 30%” bullet, but I was not in a sales role and I certainly didn’t grow them by 30%. In the end I could have revised it myself more quickly by the time I’d finished editing.
I think this is a problem for recruiters and employers. I’ve hired a lot of people during my career, and I never used keyword searches or other such tools to sort resumes. I understand that recruiters sometimes receive hundreds of applications for a single role, and getting through this many, and for several different roles, may not be manageable.
But my preference is to read enough of a resume to decide whether or not the candidate could handle the work and is at a place in their career that matches the role. I’m looking for signs of intelligence, thoughtfulness, an analytical mind, creativity, and trainability. Teaching combat skills to thousands of soldiers and professional skills to dozens of staff members helped me understand how to spot people who are willing and capable of learning new skills and procedures. This is what I look for in a new hire.
This is not easy to demonstrate in a resume, especially if the candidate worries more about matching key words.
In any event, it appears that employers have a new way to use AI when triaging candidates at the interview stage, and candidates should be prepared for this. My worry as an employer is that using these tools is very likely to make me pass over the most qualified candidates. The two best hires I’ve made in my life would not have made the cut based on a keyword comparison with the job description. Both have thrived and progressed in their careers to become assets to the firm.
I’m happy, for them and for myself, that I worked that process the old-fashioned way.
Below you can review both ChatGPT responses in case you’d like to compare them. Note that even the disclaimer differs between the two examples.
Here’s the full ChatGPT response from last week:
I can give you a pattern-based behavioral analysis based only on how you tend to use this chat — not a psychological diagnosis, just observable tendencies in work style, communication, and creative habits. Think of it as a usage-behavior profile, not a personality judgment.
1. Creative–Iterative Work Style
Strong tendency toward refinement over first-draft acceptance.
You rarely stop at version one. Your pattern is:
Request → Review → Micro-adjust → Review again → Final polish.
You frequently ask for small, precise changes (font weight, color hue, head tilt, text phrasing).
This shows:
High tolerance for iteration.
Visual and textual sensitivity.
Preference for evolution rather than wholesale redesigns.
This is common in designers, editors, and producers who think in layers rather than big jumps.
2. Producer / Director Orientation
You often act less like a casual user and more like a creative director:
You specify tone, branding, mood, and visual symbolism.
You give corrective feedback quickly and clearly.
You maintain continuity across projects (logos, fonts, recurring titles).
Behaviorally, this suggests:
Systems thinking.
Strong internal “brand model.”
Comfort delegating execution while retaining conceptual control.
3. High Thematic Consistency
Your projects orbit a few recurring domains:
Politics / civics
Media production (thumbnails, branding, scripts)
Analytical essays
Structured argumentation
This indicates:
Sustained long-term interests rather than novelty-seeking.
Identity alignment with subject matter.
Goal-oriented usage rather than exploratory wandering.
4. Analytical + Expressive Duality
You oscillate between two modes:
Analytical Mode
Expressive Mode
Essays, critiques, structured arguments
Thumbnails, branding, titles
Requests for citations and formatting
Visual symbolism and tone
Long-form planning
Rapid creative iteration
This combination is notable. Many users lean heavily toward one side. You consistently engage both, which suggests:
Comfort switching cognitive gears.
Strategic + aesthetic integration.
Desire for both substance and presentation quality.
5. Precision Without Perfection Paralysis
You show high standards but not indecision paralysis:
You refine, but you do finalize.
You move forward after “good enough plus polish.”
You don’t endlessly reopen finished work.
This suggests productive perfectionism rather than obstructive perfectionism.
6. Communication Style
Your communication traits:
Direct.
Instruction-oriented.
Low emotional padding.
Efficient corrections rather than long explanations.
This is typical of:
Project managers,
Editors,
Military/technical communicators,
Or anyone accustomed to operational clarity.
It doesn’t read as curt — more task-efficient than socially elaborate.
7. Temporal Behavior
You often return to projects over days or weeks rather than abandoning them. That indicates:
Long attention horizon.
Project continuity.
Commitment to completion rather than impulse creation.
8. Risk & Experimentation Pattern
You experiment within boundaries:
You’ll test fonts, imagery, or phrasing,
But rarely abandon the core concept or brand voice.
This is controlled creativity — innovation with guardrails.
9. Cognitive Tendencies (Behavioral Inference)
Based on interaction style alone, you likely favor:
This is not a personality or psychological diagnosis. It’s simply a behavioral pattern analysis of how you use tools and structure requests. Different contexts (social, emotional, personal) could look very different.
In short: you consistently behave like someone producing work with intent, not just consuming or experimenting.
Here is the full ChatGPT response from this morning:
Based on the patterns in your past conversations — especially the kinds of projects you initiate, the level of detail you request, and how you iterate on outputs — several behavioral tendencies stand out. This is not a psychological diagnosis, just an observational profile of interaction style and working habits.
1. Iterative Perfectionism
You rarely accept the first version of a creative or technical output. Instead, you:
Request incremental refinements.
Specify exact wording, fonts, colors, proportions, or framing.
Revisit earlier versions if later ones drift from your vision.
Tendency: You appear to value precision and alignment with intent over speed. You are comfortable with multiple revision cycles if it leads to a closer match to your internal standard.
2. High Agency / Directive Communication Style
Your instructions are typically:
Clear
Imperative rather than tentative (“Change X to Y,” “Remove Z,” “Use this image.”)
Outcome-focused rather than exploratory.
Tendency: You generally know what you want before you ask. You use tools as instruments rather than collaborators for brainstorming. This suggests strong internal visualization and decisiveness.
3. Project Continuity and Long-Form Thinking
You often return to:
Ongoing essay projects
Branding consistency (fonts, logos, naming)
Thematic continuity across media
Tendency: You think in systems and arcs, not isolated tasks. You value coherence across time and outputs, which is characteristic of strategic planners and content architects.
4. Analytical + Creative Dual Track
Your requests fall into two broad but balanced categories:
Analytical
Election data
Legislative composition
Policy or historical analysis
Fact-checking claims
Creative
Thumbnails and branding
Podcast scripts
Visual composition
Musical or stylistic elements
Tendency: You show cognitive flexibility — the ability to move between data-driven reasoning and aesthetic design without friction. Many people skew heavily one direction; you appear comfortable in both.
5. Control Over Narrative and Framing
You frequently refine:
Titles
Tone
Taglines
Emphasis and wording
Tendency: You care deeply about how information is presented, not just what is presented. This often aligns with media producers, educators, or advocates who understand framing effects on audience perception.
6. Persistence with Frustration Tolerance
When outputs don’t meet expectations, you:
Continue requesting changes rather than abandoning the task.
Maintain a generally calm, matter-of-fact tone.
Adjust parameters rather than escalating emotionally.
Tendency: High task persistence and emotional regulation in problem-solving contexts.
7. Efficiency with Social Minimalism
Your conversational style tends to:
Skip pleasantries.
Avoid unnecessary elaboration.
Move quickly to actionable instructions.
Tendency: You appear task-oriented rather than socially oriented in tool interactions. The goal is completion and quality, not rapport.
8. Brand and Identity Consistency
You repeatedly maintain:
Specific fonts
Color schemes
Logo placements
Naming conventions
Tendency: Strong orientation toward identity cohesion and professional presentation. This is common among people managing a personal or media brand.
Overall Composite Pattern
Your behavioral tendencies suggest someone who is:
Deliberate
Detail-oriented
Strategic
Comfortable with revision cycles
Balanced between analytical reasoning and creative production
Focused on outcome quality over speed
Low-drama, high-persistence in problem solving
If expressed as a working style rather than a personality label, it would resemble a “producer-editor” mindset — someone who both generates content and continuously refines it to meet a precise internal standard.
Early this morning, the US conducted military operations in Venezuela with the objective of capturing Venezuelan President Maduro. This operation appears to have been successful in that US agents did take the President into custody, along with his wife. Trump said in a press conference that no US servicemembers were killed, though a few were injured. The extent of Venezuelan casualties, military and civilian, is unknown.
While it seems that US military forces conducted the operations, Trump administration officials have characterized this as a law enforcement operation and execution of an arrest warrant, apparently issued under a 2022 indictment, for the President, his wife, and brother. They should be arraigned on charges by Monday morning.
Whatever the purpose and justification, this is an unprovoked act of war and almost certainly illegal under US and international law.
Trump claimed this morning that the US will control Venezuela until a stable local regime can take over, but he has no soldiers on the ground and the nation remains in the hands of Maduro’s government, legitimate or not.
This is a moving target that I am watching from an international relations theory perspective. IR theories lay out thoughts on the behavior of nations and states, and I’m interested in how the Trump regime and its actions validate, or invalidate, these theories.
There is of course also an interesting domestic political thread here inasmuch as the current divide within the MAGA movement over “America First” could be widened further by this kind of intervention. One under-discussed part of the US Presidential election in 2024 is how young people (as well as some Boomers!) on both the left and right opposed Biden policy toward Israel. On the left this was due to Biden’s support for what they see as genocide in Gaza; on the right it was about “why are we spending money to protect Israel when we have troubles of our own” with a bit of antisemitism tossed in.
Trump ran on an anti-war platform in 2024 but has unilaterally initiated military operations in the Caribbean, Middle East, and Africa.
I’ll have more to say about this as things develop, and will cover the topic on Monday during the first Monday Morning Coffee live show at 10AM Eastern.
Since a few people on social media have challenged my conclusion that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza since the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, I feel a need to formally lay out a short version of why I believe this to be true.
First, I will briefly outline efforts to negotiate a cease fire agreement and the current state of affairs. From there I will proceed with some definitions and then present evidence that Israeli conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza meets the criteria for genocide and that Israeli rhetoric supports this conclusion. I rely heavily on a UN Commission Report, news articles, and reports from Israeli human rights groups.
Efforts to End the Fighting
This is an ongoing war, and facts on the ground are changing. In November 2023 the Biden Administration, in collaboration with Qatar, negotiated a cease fire and what amounted to a hostage/prisoner swap. Fighting resumed on 1 December 2023 when both sides accused the other of violating its terms.
The two sides concluded another cease fire in January 2025, this one to be implemented in three phases. The first phase saw another hostage/prisoner exchange, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and resumption of humanitarian aid. Future phases would have included further exchanges of hostages and prisoners, discussions on the specifics of a permanent cessation of hostilities, demilitarization of Gaza, and peacekeepers or mediators to monitor the truce. This deal broke down largely because President Biden’s term ended, and two weeks after Trump took office, on 4 February 2025, he announced his intention to expel Palestinians from Gaza and for the US to take control of the territory. This amounted to a green light to Isreal to do as they pleased and hostilities resumed when Israel launched a surprise attack on 18 March, 2025. This attack included the bombing of a hospital complex that killed more than 400 people and wounded another 500. Israel accused Hamas of forcing it to resume hostilities by delaying the return of bodies of Israelis who died in captivity, thus ending the cease fire.
Hamas and Israel agreed to a third cease fire, also a phased cease fire, on 10 October 2025. This 20-point plan, presented by Trump in an apparent effort to win a Nobel Peace Prize (he didn’t), would become effective in three phases. The first phase terms included an Israeli military withdrawal to agreed-upon positions, release of all 48 hostages held by Hamas, including those who have died since military operations began, subsequent release of 250 Palestinians convicted or suspected of security crimes as well as about 1700 Palestinians detained in Gaza during operations, and repatriation of Hamas fighters killed. Prisoners convicted of killing Israelis would be released but barred permanently from entering Israel or the West Bank. Additionally, Israel would end their blockade of the Gaza Strip and allow humanitarian aid such as food and medications as well as materials and equipment needed to begin repairing damaged infrastructure.
The second phase would include demilitarization of Hamas and Gaza, “de-radicalization” of the territory, and a stabilization (peace-keeping) force of US, Arab, and European personnel. These peacekeepers would also train a Palestinian police force created to ensure stability and peace. Stakeholders would establish a Palestinian Committee during phase three to oversee day-to-day governance and reconstruction, including support for Palestinians who choose to stay and rebuild. The ultimate goal, should de-radicalization, reconstruction, and reform of the Palestinian Authority proceed peacefully, is acknowledgement of Palestine as a state.
Most diplomats consider this more of a pause than a cease fire, and facts on the ground seem to confirm this perception. Israel has accused Hamas of violating the truce by delaying transfer of some remains, an allegation that Hamas planned to crack down on Palestinian clans inside Gaza who support Israel, and a few small claims that Hamas had fired on Israeli troops. For their part, Israel has conducted aerial and drone strikes within Gaza that killed at least 7 Palestinians, closed the Rafah border crossing and reduced humanitarian aid, and conducting further air strikes on October 19. If we call this a war, it has not ended; both sides have refused to move to the second phase.
Mike McGirr is a community activist living in Bristol, Virginia. He grew up on a regenerative farm in Massachusetts where he learned the fundamentals of farming and shaped his lifelong commitment to localized, equitable food systems. Mike works to dismantle barriers that have long disadvantaged farmers of color, small scale producers and under-resourced communities. He also has a degree in graphic design and has handled marketing campaigns for Fortune 100 companies. This year Mike served as the volunteer campaign manager for Cindy Green, who ran for the House of Delegates in Virginia’s 44th District, a deep red district in Southwest Virginia centered on Bristol and Abingdon, near where the Tennesse, Virginia, and North Carolina borders meet. Now he’s running to be the Chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia’s Rural Caucus. Mike joins Scott and me for a discussion of politics in rural areas, economic development in Southwest Virginia, and his ideas for organizing the Rural Caucus and local County committees to grow the Democratic Party in rural spaces and more effectively support candidates.
You can find out more about Mike and his work on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/people/MichaelRay4VA/61583415347341/ and at www.MikeMcGirr4VA.com.
The FBL Theme music is Partners In Crime by Alexander Nakarada, downloaded at https://creatorchords.com. Music promoted by https://www.chosic.com/free-music/all/free-music/ Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), used by a Creative Commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Last week The Washington Post published a story describing the orders giving prior to the first US military attack on alleged drug runner boats off the coast of Venezuela. According to sources, Hegseth issued an illegal order to leave no survivors after the attack. After the first missile strike, drone footage showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Hegseth, or someone, ordered a second strike to ensure the original “kill them all” order was carried out. This is a clear violation of the Laws of War – in other words a war crime. Scott and I discuss this development and talk over our thoughts on why Trump and Hegseth are attacking these boats in the first place.
We host our first guest on the podcast, Montanan Jeff Mangan. Jeff runs a grassroots effort to change the way Montana – and other states – treat corporations. After the SCOTUS ruled in the Citizens United case that laws limiting corporate spending on election campaigns violate the First Amendment right to free speech, dark money has increased to the point where wealthy corporations and interest groups can pretty much buy elections, especially in small states. Jeff’s group would amend the State Constitution to restrict this spending once again by repealing corporate personhood. Join us to hear about Jeff’s work and find out how you can help – and start similar efforts in other states. Show notes below.
Subscribe, comment, share and let us know what you think!
Show Notes:
From the Transparent Election website: The Transparent Election Initiative is committed to ending the influence of corporate and dark money in our politics through the groundbreaking The Montana Plan. We believe that elections should be decided by voters, not by the size of corporate checkbooks.
Our approach leverages each state’s authority to define corporate powers, creating a pathway to campaign finance reform that doesn’t rely on restricting speech but instead focuses on not granting political spending powers to corporations in the first place.
Theme music: Partners In Crime by Alexander Nakarada
https://creatorchords.com Music promoted by https://www.chosic.com/free-music/all/free-music/ Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
This is the recording from my first experiment with live streaming. I talk about Nick Fuentes and the MAGA fissure his interview with Tucker Carlson started, Megyn Kelly’s claim that Jeffrey Epstein isn’t a pedophile because he liked teenage girls, not five year olds, and give some thoughts on sports betting and wealth disparity. Check it out on our YouTube channel here.
